User talk:Archduk3/Archive 17
Link to future Rainsford article Archduk, when I restored links to the future Rainsford article on the Sonequa Martin-Green and Star Trek Discovery pages on December 15, I explained my reasoning in the edit summary: "Just anticipate the future and leave the link in place--it will be needed eventually, so it's better to have it already in place rather than having to track down every first occurrence of the name later." In other words, the red links are guaranteed to be only temporary. However, you immediately removed the links without bothering to offer any rationale. Please explain why you removed them. -- BlueResistance (talk) 17:50, January 3, 2017 (UTC) :Policy. We don't link to things that are from non-aired episodes. Things often change between announcement and actual airing. Shocking, I know. -- sulfur (talk) 18:17, January 3, 2017 (UTC) Reasonable--but would you be kind enough to provide me with a direct link to the policy? The closest I can find to this policy is about spoilers and not about links, but obviously this isn't about spoilers. I don't see anything obvious on the main policies and guidelines page, and I'd rather not have to hunt around for it. -- BlueResistance (talk) 23:27, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :Last paragraph of MA:SPOILER: ::Information about upcoming episodes and films, including information from released trailers or previews, may not be included in a Memory Alpha page, aside from official cast and production information released by Paramount, CBS, or credible news sources. Moreover, this information can only be added to pages told from a "real world" point of view, such as the articles for the episodes and films themselves; pages told from an in-universe perspective, such as the articles for ships or characters, cannot contain any information from a film or episode that has not yet been released. Spoilers that violate this policy may be deleted by any user. :I think that covers it pretty well. -- sulfur (talk) 01:54, January 29, 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. -- BlueResistance (talk) 01:00, January 31, 2017 (UTC) I'm learning See Talk:Incredible Tales of Scientific Wonder. :) --LauraCC (talk) 20:42, January 10, 2017 (UTC) See Memory Alpha:Category suggestions#Puppeteers. I posted the suggestion there initially, but it will be moved to the talk page of whatever page title ultimately is chosen. --LauraCC (talk) 20:09, January 18, 2017 (UTC) Any thoughts about my naming dilemma? (post them on the category page, please) --LauraCC (talk) 20:38, January 25, 2017 (UTC) Vision banner Just saw that. What do you think of a "holographic" banner for things, places, etc (such as Curtis Creek - the creek itself, not the program) which were only mentioned in the context of a hologram, or people who were mentioned as part of a hologram, but were never seen (like Jimmy Cuzzo.) --LauraCC (talk) 18:32, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :What's the point of the banners? - 18:36, January 13, 2017 (UTC) To indicate that these things only exist in-universe as a reference in a hologram, while not being a holographic image. We never saw Curtis Creek. --LauraCC (talk) 18:42, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :You answered a question I didn't ask, so maybe I wasn't clear. What's the point of the banners that we already use? - 18:47, January 13, 2017 (UTC) To distinguish between realities, as well as in-universe and real world. Isn't a holoprogram a kind of perceived reality? Side question: do people/things exclusive to Kataan get the vision banner, too? Some still can't decide whether these people really once existed or were just representations of typical people. (I know I've read the ambiguity of this somewhere on MA, can't recall where.) --LauraCC (talk) 18:51, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Is The Doctor's family from any less "real" than he is to the prime universe? Is The Doctor any less real than Data? How can you draw a line around things Data says about his past we never saw and say that's "true" but things a hologram says are "false" if we never see them? :Also, don't get ahead of the lesson, but maybe. - 19:00, January 13, 2017 (UTC) The line could be drawn at non-sentient holograms, I suppose. I was actually going to post the Kataan question first, but then I saw you had replied to my earlier question before I could click "save" (edit conflict avoided). --LauraCC (talk) 19:04, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Well, that doesn't really work either, since we know that anything said by a hologram in Bashir 62, excepting Vic of course, is period accurate, which means except for the fictional characters and locations, such as the lounge itself, everything is "real" to the in-universe 1962. Then again, everything that Vic says that isn't breaking the 1962 4th wall is also "true" too. Doesn't really seem like sentience has anything to do with it, so why would that be a good place to draw a line? - 19:15, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I guess. Suppose we could have a listing (category, or other method) for things which exist/happened (exclusively?) in Barash's fake life for Riker...--LauraCC (talk) 19:22, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :We already do, several in fact, and most, if not all of those things are already categorized as such. - 19:30, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I knew that but wondered if fictional things/people etc included in this simulation deserved a subcat/template/other thing, which would also include things which were portrayed fictionally here but were real elsewhere. Axanar, for instance; they're real but are part of this elaborate series of fictions... --LauraCC (talk) 19:35, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :So we're done with the banners then? - 19:39, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Mmhmm. --LauraCC (talk) 19:41, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Did you learn anything from this then? - 19:44, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Banners only apply to realities, not holographic things which may inhabit any number of realities. --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :That wasn't the lesson I was trying to teach, but I'll take it. The surface lesson I was going for is that holographic does not equal fiction, and while there is a good argument for a banner for things only referenced in fictional settings, one I would argue against, but still a good argument, there isn't a good argument for a holographic banner. If you had written down your first post and then thought about it before saving, at least one of the many problems with your suggestion should have become apparent, but you didn't. You didn't even think long enough to ask all the questions that were relevant. The real lesson I was going for is think, then do. :As for connecting everything from "Future Imperfect", there's already the episode page. If you really need to do it in-universe though, "Barash's first Riker holoprogram" and "Barash's second Riker holoprogram" are open, but I would expect there to be some resistance to those. - 20:08, January 13, 2017 (UTC) If I had thought about it all by myself, I might have resolved not to suggest any of that, but for all I know, someone might think of a reason that supports it that I didn't think of. I'm only one brain. :) How about "Barash's fantasies"? --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :You never need to try and think of things that support your point of view, you're already biased towards it anyway. An unchallenged point or though isn't even worth the time it takes to say or write, so the first person challenging anything you have to say should be you. The worst case scenario is you appear wise by saying nothing, and the best is that the quality of your thoughts and arguments improves, so there isn't really anything to lose except for a few seconds here and there. Also, "Barash's fantasies" is far and beyond worse than "Barash's Riker holoprograms". The only thing more needlessly suggestive would be "Charles Evans' fantasies". - 20:23, January 13, 2017 (UTC) I was trying to think of something that put all of his imaginary things together. "Imaginations" then. --LauraCC (talk) 20:25, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :If you have to try that hard, there isn't a natural grouping to be made, so don't try and force one. - 20:27, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Isn't there a difference between not having a name for something and not having a thing to name? --LauraCC (talk) 20:28, January 13, 2017 (UTC) :Not for encyclopedias. - 20:32, January 13, 2017 (UTC) Request Hi Archduk3, I have request. Do you know this actor? --Matthew Bowyer Fan (talk) 12:33, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :I do not. Tom is generally the guy to ask about actor identification around here. - 12:38, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Well, earlier i gave him slightly worse photo, but he didn't knew him. Thanks! --Matthew Bowyer Fan (talk) 13:17, January 26, 2017 (UTC)